Sivanandam Vivekanand Babu And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 897 Bom

JUDGMENT

B.H. Marlapalle, J.

1. Both these petitions involve a common challenge viz. the decision of the respondent No. 2 University holding them ineligible for admission to the M.B.A. degree course in the academic year 1998-98 and, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment.

2. In the first petition, the petitioner belongs to Bestha BC-A group in the reserved category and he passed his B.B.M. (Bachelor of Business Management) degree course in the year 1997 by scoring 45.2% marks from the Nagarjuna University in A.P. He is a resident of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, in the second petition, also claims to belong to a reserved category and a resident of Gujarat State. She passed her B.A. degree from the South Surat University at Surat with 48% marks.

3. Vide Circular No. 107 of 1998 the respondent No. 2 University had framed the Admission Rules to different courses conducted by it as well as its affiliated colleges. Clause 3 of the said circular stated that candidates from Maharashtra State belonging to S.C./S.T./D.T.N.T./O.B.C. must submit the caste validity certificate and the students migrating from other States will not be entitled to the concessions/benefits available to the S.C./S.T./D.T.N.T., S.B.C. and O.B.C. students of the Maharashtra State. Students belonging to N.T. (C), N.T. (D) and O.B.C. must submit creamylayer free certificate. So far as M.B.A. course is concerned, the Government of Maharashtra had prescribed a common entrance test and the eligibility conditions for appearing for the said test prescribed under Circular No. 107 of 1998 were (a) a bachelor's degree in any faculty of any statutory university with 50% or more marks and 45% or more marks for candidates belonging to S.C./S.T./D.T.N.T./S.B.C./O.B.C. for Maharashtra State only, (b) a Bachelors degree with less than 50% marks with Masters Degree, second degree in any faculty of any statutory university with more than 50% marks.

4. There is no dispute that none of the petitioners claimed to have a masters degree or a second degree in any faculty of any statutory university with more than 50% marks. The eligibility after passing qualifying test for the petitioners was, therefore, a Bachelor's degree in any faculty of any statutory university with 50% or more marks and 45% or more marks if they belonged to S.C./S.T./D.T.N.T./O.B.C./S.B.C. from the State of Maharashtra. The first petitioner had scored 45.2% marks in the Bachelors Degree i.e. B.B.M. and the second petitioner had scored 48% marks in the B.A. degree course and, therefore, they were not eligible for admission as open category candidates to the M.B.A. course.

5. It appears that pursuant to the common entrance test conducted by the Government of Maharashtra for admission to M.B.A. course a merit list was prepared and none of the petitioners could succeed in getting admission through the said common entrance test. The seats in M.B.A. course conducted by respondent No. 3 were also to be filled in through the said common entrance test. However, some seats were left over and instead of approaching to the University, the respondent No. 3 institution on its own released an advertisement inviting applications for admission to the M.B.A. course. The said advertisement read, thus:

"Application from eligible candidates are invited for admission to vacant seats in M.B.A. course of UNIVERSITY OF PUNE on or before 1-9-1998. Eligibility-Bachelor's degree in any discipline of any statutory university with minimum 50% marks in the aggregate (45% in case of candidates belonging to reserved categories). Date of Entrance Test-2nd September, 1998, Date of G.D./P.I.-2nd September, 1998."

Pursuant to the said advertisement released by respondent No. 3 the petitioners responded and they underwent the written test conducted by the said institution. A merit list was prepared and the petitioners were held eligible for admission against the reserved seats for backward classes. They were accordingly admitted sometimes in October, 1998.

6. The respondent No. 3, after granting admissions to the petitioners, submitted their cases to the respondent No. 2 university for approval and by a communication dated 29th October, 1998 the Registrar of the respondent No. 2 University informed the Principal of respondent No. 3 that the admissions granted to both the petitioners were required to be cancelled as they were not eligible for admission to the M.B.A. course on the ground that none of them had obtained 50% or more marks in the last graduation examination. Copies of this communication were also forwarded to the students concerned as well as the Deputy Registrar of Examinations.

7. Inspite of this communication dated 29th October, 1998 addressed to the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 did not cancel the admissions of the petitioners and on the contrary submitted a letter on 10th May, 2000 to the respondent No. 2 University requesting to reconsider the petitioners' case. This request was turned down by a communication dated 29th May, 2000 by the University.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were eligible inasmuch they were from the reserved category and had scored 45% or more marks in the last degree examination. They were already in the second year of the M.B.A. course when the communication dated 29th of May, 2000 was received and no fault could be attributed to them for cancelling their admissions. The petitioners had fulfilled all the conditions set out in the advertisement released by the respondent No. 3. In support of these contentions the petitioners have relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, , in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and others, , and in the case of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others, . He has also invited our attention to a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and another v. Km. Rohini Singh, A.I.R. 2000 Allahabad 265, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dileep v. Marathwada University, having its office at Aurangabad, through the Registrar, Marathwada University and another, 1984 Mah.L.R. 454.

9. We have no doubt in our mind that in the facts of this case, none of the above cited decisions are applicable. Circular No. 107 of 1998, issued by the respondent No. 2 University, clearly stated that the students emigrating from other States will not be entitled to the concessions/benefits available to the S.C./S.T./D.T.N.T./S.B.C. and O.B.C. students from outside the State of Maharashtra. In the advertisement released by the respondent No. 3 this condition was not stated and the fault lies with the respondent No. 3 institution. The respondent No. 2 University has followed its Rules of admission strictly and as per the said Rules the concession of 45% or above marks in the last degree course was available to the reserved category candidates from the State of Maharashtra only. The petitioners' being residents of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat respectively, the concession was not applicable to them and, therefore, they would have fulfilled the eligibility for admission if they had scored 50% or more marks in the last degree examination, for admission to the M.B.A. course. In addition, the petitioners were admitted in October, 1998 and in the same month the respondent No. 2 University communicated its decision regarding the ineligibility of the petitioners, to the respondent No. 3 college i.e. vide letter dated 29th October, 1998. Though, the respondent No. 3 college has caused its appearance through an Advocate it chose not to file affidavit in reply. The fault lies with the respondent No. 3 institution in releasing the said advertisement without confirming to the Rules prescribed by the University i.e. the concession of 45% marks being available to the reserved category candidates from the State of Maharashtra only. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners cannot claim estoppel against the respondent No. 2 University which is the academic body to decide regarding the eligibility of the candidates for admission to the M.B.A. course. The respondent No. 3 institution allowed the petitioners to continue even after the communication dated 29th October, 1998 and instead of cancelling the admissions of the petitioners it submitted letter dated 10th of May, 2000 to the respondent No. 2 University with a request to reconsider the petitioners' case. This request was also immediately turned down by communication dated 29th May, 2000. The action of respondent No. 3 in approaching the respondent No. 2 University in May, 2000 would not create any promise at the behest of the respondent No. 2 University and in favour of the petitioners. It is for all these reasons that the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not applicable and the petitioners' claim cannot be entertained.

10. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.